linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: mxc: Support module build

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:44:14 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "oleksandr.suvorov@...adex.com" <oleksandr.suvorov@...adex.com>,
        Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>,
        Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        "hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl" <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>, Jon Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: mxc: Support module build

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:14 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> So moving drivers to modules is good.  If a module can be removed, even
> better, but developers should not be lazy and just flat out not try at
> all to make their code unloadable if at all possible.
>
> Does that help?

Yeah it confirms my intuitive maintenance approach: developer submits
modularization patch, I will be a bit inquisitive and "can't you attempt
to make this thing unload too" and if they conclude that that is
an unfathomable effort I will likely merge it anyway as very likely
the kernel looks better after than before provided all build and test
coverage stays the same as well.

Thanks!
Linus Walleij